history related question

[Mathyas Rex]

This one is for bulgarians especially.

I was reading thrue some romanian history books about the historical provinces in present day Romania, and came across a chapter about Karvuna. It says the province called Tara Carvunei ( meaning 'Land/Country of Karvuna' , similar to Tara Romaneasca - Wallachia) was populated mostly by vlachs, their ruler being Dobrotici. There is a whole paragraph about the origin of Dobrotici - as vlach - and where his name was derived from.

I always knew Dobrudzha was ruled by bulgars, so how could this be true?

[jediguardian]

Vlachs=bulgarians in the middle ages. The ottoman conquest separated them and they split up.
This is the short story.

[NikeBG]

I might say Romanian nationalism today is even greater than Bulgarian nationalism (and the latter isn't small either). So, there's your answer... ;)

[Mathyas Rex]

The problem is romanians called themselves vlachs untill the XIX century, they were called vlachs by other nations two. So how could 2 different nations be called the same, when they have almost no similarities ?

About romanian nationalism: it's a pain in the arse, because for them nationalism means hating the ethnic minorities, not promoting their own glorious* culture.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Are there minorities in Romania ? (beside of some ukrainians etc. on the borders)

[Mathyas Rex]

Yes, oficially the biggest ethnic minority in Romania are hungarians, 1.5 mill and decreasing, I'm part of it two :D

[Bulgaroktonos]

Wow, that's a state in a state ! Are you opressed or equal to the Romanians ?

[Mathyas Rex]

Let's just say there's a region in the heart of the country populated in 90% by hungarians and they have been fighting for autonomy since the collapse of comunism, and still no results. What's more they (the government) are paying colonists to move into this region, to decrease the percentage of hungarians.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Why don't you move ro Hungaria ?

[domagoj]

because that region IS hungaria-i think

[Mathyas Rex]

2 domagoj: lol, you should check a map of central europe
2 Bulgaroktonos: many of us did move, most remained because this was our country and we can't abandon it

but this is getting off-topic

I have another question though: if the vlachs were in fact bulgarians, where do romanians come from??? What's the opinion of bulgarian historians about their origins???

[domagoj]

mathyas its same like croats-bosniaks-except i dont know which one is the truth-speaking side.

[Bulgaroktonos]

romanians are obviously romans :D

I read bulgarians came from the transcaucasus steppes and migrated westwards.

[NikeBG]

I have another question though: if the vlachs were in fact bulgarians, where do romanians come from??? What's the opinion of bulgarian historians about their origins???
Bulgarian historians almost don't deal with Romanian's origins. At most, they deal only with the medieval usage of "Vlach" as "shepherd/nomad" in some senses and in other - as Moesian (i.e. people from the Paristrion theme, i.e. present Northern Bulgaria). Otherwise, we mostly don't care, especially since the Romanian principalities used the Bulgarian language as their official language till around the 18 century, almost all of their rulers had Slavic names etc. After the 18 century a strong process of Romanisation began and all non-Romance influences were "expelled" (though modern-day Romanian language still has a fair ammount of Bulgarian influences remaining). Of course, the Romance elements must have been present long before the 18 century too, they just gained the upper hand at that time. But whether the Romanians were a mix of "Daco-Thracians + Romans", who (according to Romanians) were hiding in the forests for almost a millenium and then suddenly appeared fully preserved and totally dominating - that's not a problem of the Bulgarian historiography (we have enough problems with arguing about our own origins). ;)

I read bulgarians came from the transcaucasus steppes and migrated westwards.
Yup, that's correct. There were several waves of Bulgar (btw, note the difference between Bulgar and Bulgarian) migrations to Europe, but they all came from the Transcaucasus steppes (which I personally consider to be the actual land of origin of the Bulgars, considering that's where the final mix happened, eventhough some of the Bulgar tribes might have called themselves Bulgar even before they went to Transcaucasia from even further East (be that Bactria, Altay, Siberia or whatever)). After that, when the Danubian Bulgars came here, they mixed with the local populations (Slavs, Romeans/Byzantines, some Thracians remains, some say even some Goths) and became Bulgarians. After that there were waves of other populations (Cumans, Pechenegs, Uzes etc), of course, which had their own ethno-genetical influences, but they all more or less got assimilated in the Bulgarian pool.

P.S. My personal belief is that the origins of the Romanians and the Vlachs, like those of all other people, is very complicated. A part of them might have been indeed Daco-Roman remnants, who might have somehow managed to keep their new Romance language, but who kept their numbers low and lived mostly in the mountain forests, until around the Mongol invasion, when the power vaccuum and their already increased numbers might have allowed them to play a more and more important role in the administration in that region. And that role increased more and more with time (especially after the Ottoman conquests in the Balkans) and became also a strong cultural and linguistic influence, which eventually led to a full Romanisation of most non-Romance population-remains. Of course, it's still a rather far-fetched explanation, but it's the best I have which still makes at least a little bit of sense (even if it relies on some extraordinary luck etc).